Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!ncrgw2.ncr.com!ncrhub6!daynews!intruder.daytonoh.ncr.com!news
From: David E. Weldon, Ph.D. <David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: New Physics Curriculum
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 149.25.61.42
Message-ID: <D664H9.6p7@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>
Sender: news@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com (News administrative Login)
Reply-To: David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM (WELDOD)
Organization: AT&T Global Info Solutions
X-Newsreader: DiscussIT 2.0.1.2 for MS Windows [AT&T Software Products Division]
References: <D5yLJK.ALG@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 20:48:45 GMT
Lines: 153
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:28583 comp.ai.philosophy:26344


@==========Andrzej Pindor, 3/24/95==========
@
@In article <D5t7CH.Gu4@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>,
@David E. Weldon, Ph.D.  
@<David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM> wrote:
@:
@>2.  Except for the modern era, the greatest scientists in western 
@culture were
@>Christians.  Furthermore, they drew all of their hypotheses about 
@the physical
@
@Just an observation: except for modern era, the western culture 
@was exclusively
@Christian, so how any scientists (greatest and not so great) in this 
@culture 
@could be anything but Christians??
@BTW, can you tell us what you consider "modern era"? At least +- 
@100 years?
@
You make my point by your own error.  However, I don't want to leave the error
uncorrected.  Actually, skeptics were quite active as early as 1400.  Ben
Franklin stands out as a significant example of a 1700's Diest.  I won't
belabor the rest.  The modern era probably starts with Darwin's, "Origin of
Species," although it did not have a significant impact on modern thought
until the turn of the century when Brittish society latched onto it as an
explanation for Britian's world supremacy.  Today the ratio of skeptics to
believers in the scientific community is probably about two to one.

@>universe from their understanding of God andHis relationship to 
@His creation. 
@
@Can you explicate this in case of Copernicus? 

The dispute between the followers of Copernicus and Ptolemy was not on
religious grounds.  It was on the most appropriate description of planatary
movements (note that Ptolemy's math is simpler than that of Copernicus--On the
basis of Occam's Razor, Ptolemy should have won, but his theory didn't explain
as much data).

@Wasn't it the "understanding of God andHis relationship to His 
@creation"
@that kept the Church stuck to Ptolemy's model (of Greek origin in 
@itself)?

Depends on who you mean by "stuck."  If you are refering to the Catholic
Church Hierarchy and some dusty old theologians in that hierarchy, then yes. 
But I was talking about the worldview of scientists.

@For instance, if my recollections are right, a fragment of the 
@biblical story 
@of Joshua was used to support Ptolemy's model (Josh 10:12,13).
@
@>Without the Judeo-Christian tradition, science as we know it 
@would not exist. 
@>All other religions, including the Greek rationalists, view the 
@world as
@>chaotic and capricious; Only Judeo-Christian doctrine viewed 
@God's creation as
@>good, therefore orderly and lawful, and therefore capable of 
@being studied.
@
@You mean Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks etc. did not 
@study the world?
@How about their ability to foretell eclipses of the Sun? Would this 
@be possible
@with the world being chaotic and capricious?

Astrology is not the sum total of science.  To see regularity in the paths of
stars across the night sky is not the same thing as recognizing that a
butterfly comes from a coccoon spun by a caterpiller, or that it is possible
to classify the animals of the world hierarchically.  Only someone who
believed that "all life produces after its own kind" would even attempt
classification.

@
@>Finally, these scientists used the Bible as the major source of 
@their
@>hypotheses and theories.  
@
@Is that so? I have thought that these scientists, even though being 
@Christians,
@used Greek writings (some of the Arabic too) as the major starting 
@point.
@As far as I know it was the translations of Greek texts, found after 
@Moors
@were chased away from Spain, that gave a major boost to the 
@western science.

It was the church who sponsored scholarship and founded the great Universities
of Europe.  These were well underway before Spain drove out the moors. 
Furthermore, there is nothing in the Greek writings recovered that served as a
source of hypotheses for science.  Also, the church was the single institution
that preserved the manuscripts and copied them...and copied them...even when
they did not know what the writings contained.

@Is there, for instance, anything about planets in the Bible?

yes!  There is also economic theory, a theory of justice, crime and
punishment, a theory of social welfare, not to mention careful geographic
specification of the major cities of asia-minor.  The scriptures are still
currently the best source for archeologists who work in the middle east.
@
@>So even if everything in the Bible is fiction, our
@>understanding of our world in large part is determined by its 
@worldview.
@>
@In early middle ages Arabic science was far more advanced than 
@the western one.

I'm sorry, you'll have to provide supportive evidence for this one.  My
understanding is that they gave us the symbol set for the integers and some of
the basic, associated algorithyms for addition , subtraction, and division of
arabic numbers, but little else.

@That it did not progress was more likely due to the stagnation of 
@Arabic 
@culture and political power, possibly do to social reasons than to 
@its
@shortcomings. 

And what do you think was the major social cause of their stagnation.  The
Arabic (moslem) world view sees everything as due to fate--it is an extremely
fatalistic religion.  If things are bad, it is the will of Allah!

@If you said that blossoming of western _culture_ and _economy_ 
@was due to
@values inherent in Christianity, I might agree with you. 
@However, I think you are mistaken claiming that the western 
@_science_ comes in 
@large part from the worldview contained in the Bible.
@
We disagree, but I think before you assert the above, you need to examine the
world view of the Bible carefully.
Consider the following:
Every hospital constructed between 1000 AD and 1900 AD was built and staffed
by the church.
Every University in Europe can trace its roots to the church.
Every major figure in science from Galileo to Sir John Eccles has expressed in
personal writings their deep and abiding faith in God and that their faith was
the source of their inspiration.

Note:  Again, their faith may well have been misplaced, but you can deny its
fertility and power.

@-- 
@Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
@University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
@Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not 
@what they see.
@pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
@

